Amen, Fr. George. Your post brings up a very good point, which is this: since when are Priests absolutely beyond reproach? Last time I checked, Deacons, Priests, and Bishops are still humans, and are thus capable of error. Calling into question the truthfulness of something stated by a Priest does not disrespect the office of the Priesthood. I find the fact that Fr. Ambrose hides behind his office of Priest within the Orthodox Church anytime someone questions whether each and every one of his words are Gospel to be despicable.

Now, you see, there is a new and despicable lie about me right there. I have usually been careful NOT to use my rank as a priest in debates.

In the case of this thread it is of course a different story since the entire thread is focused on discussing whether Fr Ambrose is a consistent liar and that has a direct impact on my character and integrity as a priest.

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

We have discussed, more than once, the theology of the Angelic Doctor, which not only advises but strongly recommends that religious dissidents be killed. He even teaches that heretics who repent and return to Catholicism should still be given by the Church to be killed by the secular powers.

This is institutionalised murder taught as theology by Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. Because we have discussed this before I assumed Catholics here would be aware of it.

This is not an answer...neither to J Michael nor to my original question. You can cite individual theologians, Popes, and Bishops all you want, Father, but the fact remains: nowhere have you shown that the Catholic Church formally and officially embraces violence or murder to deal with heretics.

Are you unaware of the centuries of the Inquisition, in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Goa? the slaughter of 10s of thousands of Cathari in Southern France by an army under the command of a Cistercian abbot? of the death penalty in the Polish kingdom for the Orthodox refusing to join the Unia?

I know you can slide out of Thomistic theology by pointing out that he was a nobody Dominican and not a member of the Magisterium. Conveniently overlooking that his theology has formed the basis of Roman Catholic theology for centuries and he is lauded without limit.

In the centuries that followed the Dominicans were able to torture and kill, or have killed, thousands of people. They could do this with a clear conscience because the "Angelic" Doctor had already provided them with a theological basis for it. Spiritual eugenics, the elimination of religious dissidents, had been established in Roman Catholic theology. Has this teaching in the Summa been repudiated or is it in abeyance and simply awaiting new political circumstances?

Reference for the Cathari so you know there is no misrepresentation...

The testimony of William of Puylaurens: "Arnaud [a holy Cistercian abbot who was the commander of the Catholic troops] wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." A sad boast to hear from a monk! Thank you, Aquinas, for making it possible for a monk to espouse such a position without any disturbance to his conscience, the outworking of Aquinas' teaching in the Summa!

"The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens: The Albigensian Crusade and Its Aftermath", p128, William, M. D. Sibly, Boydell Press, 2003, ISBN 0851159257

Mary stated that RC bishops in the medieval period did not believe in temporal indulgences, but issued them nonetheless knowing that these indulgences misrepresented the true RCC doctrine. I stated this was a falsehood and that I could not believe the RC bishops would, uniformly, deceive their faithful. I challenged Mary to prove herself, as she represented this as a historical fact and an acceptable practice of the RCC.

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

*sigh* It's hard to talk with you, Wyatt, when you get things wrong and having got it wrong, you move on to insult me.

It is about me. PetertheAleut has stated that clearly:

Quote

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Your history of violence, persecution and murder has been consistent through many centuries and many countries.

Doesn't prove anything except that there are sinners in our Church, which I gladly and freely admit. I'm a grievous sinner myself. Back to the original question: where does our Church teach that violence and murder is not only not sinful, but good and acceptable as you originally asserted?

Why do you think the Greeks are so fixated on the conquest of Constantinople? And the same phobia runs through the veins of other Orthodox nations.

Because they hold onto old grudges? The middle ages was a barbaric and turbulent time for humanity in general. Trying to pin all the evil of that time period on the Catholic Church and say it was solely the Catholic Church's fault is ridiculous.

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

*sigh* It's hard to talk with you, Wyatt, when you get things wrong and having got it wrong, you move on to insult me.

It is about me. PetertheAleut has stated that clearly:

Quote

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Did not other moderators speak up and say that this thread is not just about you, but about "intentional misrepresentation" in general?

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

*sigh* It's hard to talk with you, Wyatt, when you get things wrong and having got it wrong, you move on to insult me.

It is about me. PetertheAleut has stated that clearly:

Quote

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Also, it wasn't an insult. DO you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex? You've been told, several times, that the purpose of this thread is far more broad than just determining if Fr. Ambrose is or is not a liar. The personal intentions of PeterTheAleut doesn't matter here because the fact that this thread remains open indicates that the other mods see a beneficial purpose in keeping it open. Why do you keep making this about you?

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Right now...he is speaking of periods of time that he has no recollection of. He doesn't remember the middle ages.

We're got two contributions already: J Michael has told us that "you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel" is not an insult, and Wyatt said that "Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?" isn't one either.

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Right now...he is speaking of periods of time that he has no recollection of. He doesn't remember the middle ages.

Do you, Wyatt? If so, then enlighten us all with your knowledge and experience. Show us how Fr Ambrose is distorting the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Right now...he is speaking of periods of time that he has no recollection of. He doesn't remember the middle ages.

Do you, Wyatt? If so, then enlighten us all with your knowledge and experience. Show us how Fr Ambrose is distorting the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

The burden of proof lies on him since he is the one making outlandish claims, such as that the Catholic Church was the sole force of evil throughout the middle ages, while the evils committed by people in the Eastern Orthodox Church was negligible.

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Right now...he is speaking of periods of time that he has no recollection of. He doesn't remember the middle ages.

Do you, Wyatt? If so, then enlighten us all with your knowledge and experience. Show us how Fr Ambrose is distorting the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

The burden of proof lies on him since he is the one making outlandish claims, such as that the Catholic Church was the sole force of evil throughout the middle ages, while the evils committed by people in the Eastern Orthodox Church was negligible.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

The burden of proof lies on him since he is the one making outlandish claims, such as that the Catholic Church was the sole force of evil throughout the middle ages, while the evils committed by people in the Eastern Orthodox Church was negligible.

The burden of proof lies on him since he is the one making outlandish claims, such as that the Catholic Church was the sole force of evil throughout the middle ages, while the evils committed by people in the Eastern Orthodox Church was negligible.

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Right now...he is speaking of periods of time that he has no recollection of. He doesn't remember the middle ages.

Do you, Wyatt? If so, then enlighten us all with your knowledge and experience. Show us how Fr Ambrose is distorting the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

The burden of proof lies on him since he is the one making outlandish claims, such as that the Catholic Church was the sole force of evil throughout the middle ages, while the evils committed by people in the Eastern Orthodox Church was negligible.

And there you go again! More lies about me. I have not said that. Either you genuinely do not grasp what I write or you're just trying to be nasty.

We're got two contributions already: J Michael has told us that "you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel" is not an insult, and Wyatt said that "Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?" isn't one either.

Peter, if you read the rest of the paragraph I wrote, you would see that it says, "I would withdraw it, if that is possible.". I wrote that, and I meant it. If it would further the cause of peace here and if you and Fr. Ambrose would be satisfied by my saying, "I retract that statement", then ...I retract that statement. I hope that helps. Forgive me if I have hurt or upset you by making an ill-conceived statement about you, Fr. Ambrose.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Also, for the record, you've still not proven that your allegations about our Church are true.

Fr Ambrose was raised Roman Catholic, and related his direct and personal experiences of his time in this church as they were before the major changes of the Second Vatican Council, a period which was way before the time of a good many members of this forum.

I have no reason to doubt his testimony. He has nothing to prove. The onus is upon those who accuse him of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, particularly that of the pre-1965 period, to prove he is wrong. But, as so many here have had no direct experience of pre-1965 Roman Catholicism, I can't see that happening any time soon. The only consequence of this sorry thread is to blacken the name of a good priest and a good man.

Right now...he is speaking of periods of time that he has no recollection of. He doesn't remember the middle ages.

Do you, Wyatt? If so, then enlighten us all with your knowledge and experience. Show us how Fr Ambrose is distorting the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

The burden of proof lies on him since he is the one making outlandish claims, such as that the Catholic Church was the sole force of evil throughout the middle ages, while the evils committed by people in the Eastern Orthodox Church was negligible.

And there you go again! More lies about me. I have not said that. Either you genuinely do not grasp what I write or you're just trying to be nasty.

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican? How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic. Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country.

Apparently violence is only sinful when it's Catholics who are engaging in it. Good thing none of these guys are sinning:

This discussion borders on the absurd. While I might not adopt the tone and methods of argument that Fr. A uses from time to time, the reality of history speaks volumes in support of the underlying assertions of his position if you take the time to ferret them out of Father's passion. If a zealous Roman Catholic attempts to justify all which occurred to and within the Roman Church over her history through the actions of her leaders and outside forces only by using the lens of a 21st century point of view they are destined to fail. The same can be said of equally zealous Orthodox.

The history and the doctrinal developments of the Roman Catholic faith from the time immediately prior to the Great Schism and continuing though the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment is, for better or worse, hopelessly intertwined with events both under the control of the Church and beyond her control.(I am skipping around historically, but it is tough to summarize one thousand or so years....so forgive the flow of my narrative.)

The abuses which led to Luther and the Reformation (among them the use of indulgences, simony and other sins - for lack of a better word -), the relationship of the institution of the Papacy with the secular powers of the Italian peninsula and the French Monarchy and the attempts by those secular powers to co-opt the power of the Church over the illiterate peasants of the time for the advancement of their own temporal ambitions can not be denied. (i.e. the Medici, the Borgias, the French Anti-popes)

Burning heretics as part of Church imposed earthly sanctions likewise can not be denied, for example Jan Hus. Nor can the burning of protectors of the faith in order to preserve a temporal advantage, for example St. Joan of Arc, be denied. (Certainly the theoretical musings of Aquinas and other scholastics were used to justify both types of actions, not to mention the forced conversions of native peoples by the Spaniards in the New World or the Jews and Moors of Iberia.) Again, reality compelled the development of a supportive narrative.

Nor can one deny the reality of the manipulation of the masses of Europe in the calls for Crusade, the greed of the Franks as well as later Crusader Knights and Lords in their use of those masses, and the resultant abuses to Christians in the eastern part of the Christian world is a matter of historical record. Any course of the history of Western civilization that a college undergraduate would have been required to take until recent years would have taught most readers here who were not alive in 1965 to understand that context. Runciman and others have written at length from a non-Orthodox perspective on that period and the gradual erosion and collapse of Byzantium.

Much of the issues that Fr. A. points out were the focus of the Reformation and later the Counter-Reformation and were not really openly addressed until the post Vatican 2 era. Is that so hard to accept when reviewed in their real context without the fiery passion in the presentation? Can anyone imagine a Pope apologizing for the actions of the Crusaders prior to the end of the 20th century? I think not.

Certainly, Orthodoxy had her own problems over the same period of time, not the least of which was her survival as the Church confronted the Muslims on many fronts from Byzantium to Moscow. Since the Orthodox patriarchs never possessed the temporal powers of the Patriarch of Rome (again the fall of the western empire and the resultant power vacuum in the west from the fifth century through the rise of the Franks were a prime cause of the temporal role of the Papacy and 'theology' had to develop to account for that reality) the patriarchal sees were less of a temporal prize to the scheming Royals of the various houses of the Orthodox monarchical world. To not view them as scheming however, is to paint a picture through the thickest of rose colored apologist lenses. So what?

Rather than name-calling and continually going back and forth, I would challenge any of the outspoken Roman Catholic critics of Fr. A. to present a credible alternative history regarding the world of the period and how the Roman Church was both influenced and compromised by those realities she faced. The fact that she did prevail says more about the power of the Holy Spirit than the power of any man claiming the mantle of Christ's Vicar on Earth. Likewise, I would ask my fellow Orthodox to calm down a bit and let this settle out.

One thing that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox 'pride' themselves upon is their lack of 'fundamentalism' in their respective approaches to the development of the faith and the expressions of that faith in the real world. A bit of critical analysis is required in order to 'see the forest for the trees.'

But this is a sacred tradition. Once or twice a year Miaphysites and Diophysites engage in a holy brawl in Jerusalem. The brawlers are carefully selected - young men dressed in light mauve.

Thank you Father for a good laugh.

Amen podkarpatska. I am loathe to jump in on these Orthodox-Catholic threads for the reason that they inevitable break down into useless name calling. And even though I think the anti-Catholic polemics get far too heated sometimes, an honest review of history has to account for the actions of the Roman Catholic church in the Middle Ages. That said, I clearly recognize that the RC church of the last 50 plus yeas bears little to no resemblance to the troubled institution of centuries past.

I do believe that, if the RCs could only see it, you are far more dangerous to them.

I think there's some truth to that, Fr. Ambrose.

Just speaking of my own experience on this forum, I have become aware of a lot of difficulties with the Roman Communion that I wasn't aware of before, due in large part to your posts.

However, your manner of presenting things can sometimes make it hard to receive your message (at least for me). Hence I think you would be more (to use your word) "dangerous" to the Roman Communion if you would shall-we-say soften your posting style a little.

Reference for the Cathari so you know there is no misrepresentation...

The testimony of William of Puylaurens: "Arnaud [a holy Cistercian abbot who was the commander of the Catholic troops] wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." A sad boast to hear from a monk! Thank you, Aquinas, for making it possible for a monk to espouse such a position without any disturbance to his conscience, the outworking of Aquinas' teaching in the Summa!

"The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens: The Albigensian Crusade and Its Aftermath", p128, William, M. D. Sibly, Boydell Press, 2003, ISBN 0851159257

The baptism of Kiev was followed by similar ceremonies in other urban centres of the country. The Ioakim Chronicle says that Vladimir's uncle, Dobrynya, forced the Novgorodians into Christianity "by fire", while the local mayor, Putyata, persuaded his compatriots to accept Christian faith "by the sword". At that same time, Bishop Ioakim Korsunianin built the first, wooden, Cathedral of Holy Wisdom "with 13 tops" on the site of a pagan cemetery.[15]

Paganism persisted in the country for a long time, surfacing during the Upper Volga Uprising and other occasional pagan protests. The northeastern part of the country, centred on Rostov, was particularly hostile to the new religion. Novgorod itself faced a pagan uprising as late as 1071, in which Bishop Fedor faced a real threat to his person; Prince Gleb Sviatoslaich broke up the crowd by chopping a sorcerer in half with an axe.[16]

I told you then Father that you presumed too much and have misinterpreted what I said. I also told you that I would not try to change your mind or explain then. I do not intend to try now. It is too badly mangled by your over-lay on what I MUST have meant or said. There's no MUST about it save in your own mind.

Mary stated that RC bishops in the medieval period did not believe in temporal indulgences, but issued them nonetheless knowing that these indulgences misrepresented the true RCC doctrine. I stated this was a falsehood and that I could not believe the RC bishops would, uniformly, deceive their faithful. I challenged Mary to prove herself, as she represented this as a historical fact and an acceptable practice of the RCC.

Please do not derail my thread with with loose talk of the Ioakim Chronicle. As far as I gather from PetertheAleut's stated intention this thread concerns my lying when writing on Roman Catholic themes.

Reference for the Cathari so you know there is no misrepresentation...

The testimony of William of Puylaurens: "Arnaud [a holy Cistercian abbot who was the commander of the Catholic troops] wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex." A sad boast to hear from a monk! Thank you, Aquinas, for making it possible for a monk to espouse such a position without any disturbance to his conscience, the outworking of Aquinas' teaching in the Summa!

"The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens: The Albigensian Crusade and Its Aftermath", p128, William, M. D. Sibly, Boydell Press, 2003, ISBN 0851159257

The baptism of Kiev was followed by similar ceremonies in other urban centres of the country. The Ioakim Chronicle says that Vladimir's uncle, Dobrynya, forced the Novgorodians into Christianity "by fire", while the local mayor, Putyata, persuaded his compatriots to accept Christian faith "by the sword". At that same time, Bishop Ioakim Korsunianin built the first, wooden, Cathedral of Holy Wisdom "with 13 tops" on the site of a pagan cemetery.[15]

Paganism persisted in the country for a long time, surfacing during the Upper Volga Uprising and other occasional pagan protests. The northeastern part of the country, centred on Rostov, was particularly hostile to the new religion. Novgorod itself faced a pagan uprising as late as 1071, in which Bishop Fedor faced a real threat to his person; Prince Gleb Sviatoslaich broke up the crowd by chopping a sorcerer in half with an axe.[16]

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

*sigh* It's hard to talk with you, Wyatt, when you get things wrong and having got it wrong, you move on to insult me.

It is about me. PetertheAleut has stated that clearly:

Quote

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Fr. Ambrose, I must be honest here and tell you that you are misrepresenting me, and all the evidence suggests that you are doing this very intentionally. I may not be qualified to argue whether you are misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, since I really don't know Latin Doctrine all that well, but I am qualified to tell you and others what I mean by the words I use, and I am qualified to point everyone here to posts where I stated my purpose for this thread in much greater clarity than in the post you've now quoted at least twice. You are lying about me, and to set the record straight, I must call you out on it. Please let me speak for myself.

I told you then Father that you presumed too much and have misinterpreted what I said. I also told you that I would not try to change your mind or explain then. I do not intend to try now. It is too badly mangled by your over-lay on what I MUST have meant or said. There's no MUST about it save in your own mind.

Mary stated that RC bishops in the medieval period did not believe in temporal indulgences, but issued them nonetheless knowing that these indulgences misrepresented the true RCC doctrine. I stated this was a falsehood and that I could not believe the RC bishops would, uniformly, deceive their faithful. I challenged Mary to prove herself, as she represented this as a historical fact and an acceptable practice of the RCC.

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

*sigh* It's hard to talk with you, Wyatt, when you get things wrong and having got it wrong, you move on to insult me.

It is about me. PetertheAleut has stated that clearly:

Quote

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Fr. Ambrose, I must be honest here and tell you that you are misrepresenting me, and all the evidence suggests that you are doing this very intentionally. I may not be qualified to argue whether you are misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, since I really don't know Latin Doctrine all that well, but I am qualified to tell you and others what I mean by the words I use, and I am qualified to point everyone here to posts where I stated my purpose for this thread in much greater clarity than in the post you've now quoted at least twice. You are lying about me, and to set the record straight, I must call you out on it. Please let me speak for myself.

Peter, would you please be specific about your intentions for this thread...

I refer to to your messages 94 and 111 where you state your purpose in creating this thread which is as I say.

I further refer you to to your message 124 where you change your tune about the purpose of this thread. You’re confusing us.

You've been told time and again that this thread is not just about you. Do you have delusions of grandeur or a martyr complex?

*sigh* It's hard to talk with you, Wyatt, when you get things wrong and having got it wrong, you move on to insult me.

It is about me. PetertheAleut has stated that clearly:

Quote

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Fr. Ambrose, I must be honest here and tell you that you are misrepresenting me, and all the evidence suggests that you are doing this very intentionally. I may not be qualified to argue whether you are misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith, since I really don't know Latin Doctrine all that well, but I am qualified to tell you and others what I mean by the words I use, and I am qualified to point everyone here to posts where I stated my purpose for this thread in much greater clarity than in the post you've now quoted at least twice. You are lying about me, and to set the record straight, I must call you out on it. Please let me speak for myself.

Peter, would you please be specific about your intentions for this thread...

I refer to to your messages 94 and 111 where you state your purpose in creating this thread which is as I say.

To set the example I would like others to follow by offering proof of my allegations, here are the two clearest statements of my purpose for this thread:

Actually, stashko, in this case I'm not finding fault with Fr. Ambrose. I didn't start this thread to state any suspicion I might have that Fr. Ambrose intentionally misrepresents Roman Catholic doctrine. I just note that he gets accused of this a lot, enough so that threads get derailed by these accusations. I'm finally giving him a chance to defend himself against these charges without threads getting derailed in the process.

And to you Catholic posters reading this thread, this is your chance to finally make your case against Fr. Ambrose, to "put up or shut up", as the saying goes. What evidence can you provide that Fr. Ambrose really does make a practice of intentionally misrepresenting your faith? Just repeating that charge against him means nothing if you can't prove it--besides that, repetition of your mantra is an intellectually lazy way to dodge your responsibility to offer a cogent defense of your faith. So I finally say to you: Prove your case against Fr. Ambrose by telling us what you really believe, or stop slandering him with the accusation that he intentionally misrepresents (IOW, lies about) your faith. The same goes for your accusations against Isa Almisry.

Additionally, as Peter J said above, the accusations have already been made of your behavior. I'm not asking anyone to post new accusations. I'm just asking them to substantiate the accusations they've already made. And if they cannot prove their accusations true, what do you have to fear? You will be exonerated. I'm putting our Catholic posters in the hot seat here, not you.

Other posters on this thread understood perfectly what I was trying to communicate in the above quoted posts, so I know my message is not getting lost.

When you misrepresent what I say, I am authorized to act on my behalf and let everyone here know exactly what I really said and what I meant by what I said. I am also authorized to tell everyone that you are twisting my words to make them fit the meaning you wish them to have and that you are not representing my intentions honestly. I think everyone here will recognize that I'm the ultimate authority on what I intend to communicate by the words I use. That's why I now ask you to cease and desist from quoting me in some attempt to influence people into thinking I had a purpose for this thread that differs from what I've stated to be my purpose.

Exactly. What would Christ, St. John the Baptist, the Desert Fathers, or the Church Fathers have to say?

Have we forgotten the Beatitudes? Most churches do not even pray/chant the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy anymore.

Quote

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.Blessed are the gentle; for they shall inherit the earth.Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.Blessed are the merciful; for they shall have mercy shown them.Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are you when you suffer insults and persecution and every kind of calumny for my sake.Rejoice and be glad; for great is your reward in heaven.

The Divine Liturgy according to Saint John Chrysostom in Romanian and Modern English, The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. 1975, p. 41-42.

Have we forgotten the Beatitudes? Most churches do not even pray/chant the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy anymore.

That's a rather bold generalization to make. I've never been to an Orthodox church that doesn't sing the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy, at least on Sundays. You got any evidence to back up that claim?

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.Blessed are the gentle; for they shall inherit the earth.Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.Blessed are the merciful; for they shall have mercy shown them.Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are you when you suffer insults and persecution and every kind of calumny for my sake.Rejoice and be glad; for great is your reward in heaven.

The Divine Liturgy according to Saint John Chrysostom in Romanian and Modern English, The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. 1975, p. 41-42.

Have we forgotten the Beatitudes? Most churches do not even pray/chant the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy anymore.

That's a rather bold generalization to make. I've never been to an Orthodox church that doesn't sing the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy, at least on Sundays. You got any evidence to back up that claim?

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.Blessed are the gentle; for they shall inherit the earth.Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.Blessed are the merciful; for they shall have mercy shown them.Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are you when you suffer insults and persecution and every kind of calumny for my sake.Rejoice and be glad; for great is your reward in heaven.

The Divine Liturgy according to Saint John Chrysostom in Romanian and Modern English, The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. 1975, p. 41-42.

The Greek Orthodox Church (GOARCH) and the Antiochian Service Books that I have, do not have the Beatitudes listed in them. Nor do they sing them on Sunday. Only the Orthodox Churches who are part of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (True Orthodox) or the Orthodox Churches who follow the Slavonic Typikon sing the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy.

Have we forgotten the Beatitudes? Most churches do not even pray/chant the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy anymore.

That's a rather bold generalization to make. I've never been to an Orthodox church that doesn't sing the Beatitudes during the Divine Liturgy, at least on Sundays. You got any evidence to back up that claim?

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.Blessed are the gentle; for they shall inherit the earth.Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.Blessed are the merciful; for they shall have mercy shown them.Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are you when you suffer insults and persecution and every kind of calumny for my sake.Rejoice and be glad; for great is your reward in heaven.

The Divine Liturgy according to Saint John Chrysostom in Romanian and Modern English, The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. 1975, p. 41-42.